|
Illinois Lawyer Search - Listings for Appleton Law Office
Name: Appleton Law Office
Address: 129 E Main St Aledo, IL 61231
Phone Number: 309-582-5121
|
Specialties:
|
Patent Trademark & Copyright Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
HARVEY v. VENEMAN USCA1 Opinion 04-1379 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit _ No. 04-1379 ARTHUR HARVEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. ANN VENEMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant, Appellee. _ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] _ Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Selya, Circuit Judge, and Schwarzer, (1) Senior District Judge. _ Paula Dinerstein with whom Lobel, Novins & Lamont was on brief for appellant. Susan E. Stokes, Jill E. Krueger, Farmers' Legal Action Group, and Joseph Mendelson III, Center for Food Safety, on brief for Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, Center for Food Safety, and Beyond Pesticides, Amici Curiae. James Handley, Handley Environmental Law, on brief for Organic Consumers Association, Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Inc., Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc., John Clark, Merrill Clark, Anne Mendenhall, Greenpeace USA, and Waterkeeper Alliance, Amici Curiae. Halsey B. Frank, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, was on the brief for appellee. _ January 26, 2005 _ SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge. Arthur Harvey appeals the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman on Harvey's claims alleging that multiple provisions of the National Organic Program Final Rule ("Final Rule" or "Rule"), 7 C.F.R. Pt. 205, are inconsistent with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6523 ("OFPA" or "Act"). Harvey appeals on seven of the nine counts he originally brought. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment on the first, second, fifth, sixth, and eighth counts and reverse on the third and seventh counts, and we remand for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. OVERVIEW OF OFPA AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS Congress enacted OFPA in 199...
USA v HART IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-60304 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODALTON HART Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division) _ June 12, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and WIENER Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge: Defendant-Appellant Rodalton Hart ("Rodalton") appeals his conviction by a jury for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 ("§ 1014") and 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(B) ("§ 201(b)(1)(B)"). We conclude that the United States's ("the government's") "summary" witness did far more than summarize previously-presented evidence, and that, when the summary witness's testimony and accompanying documentary evidence is redacted, the remaining evidence is insufficient to prove the government's case against Rodalton beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore reverse Rodalton's conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand the case for a new trial. I. Facts and Proceedings Rodalton has been a resident and family farmer in Holmes County, Mississippi for most of his life. After his graduation from Jacksonville State University in 1972, he returned to Holmes County to help his father run the family farm. In addition to helping his father, Rodalton started his own farm, gradually expanding his operation from thirteen acres - cultivating row crops and raising cattle - to several thousand acres by the mid-1980s. His success in farming was among the factors that led Mike Espy, who was Secretary of Agriculture at the time, to appoint Rodalton as one of Espy's advisors. In 1993, Rodalton and his brothers, who were also involved in farming, formed five separate partnerships, hoping to run their farming operations more efficiently by sharing labor, land, and equipment, and thereby maximize their income. Among the partnerships were R & C Farms (Rodalton and his wife, Carmella), and C & ...
FINER FOODS INC v. AGRI In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 01-4024 Finer Foods, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Agriculture Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Submitted December 7, 2001-Decided December 11, 2001 Before Bauer, Easterbrook, and Williams, Circuit Judges. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. Finer Foods, Inc., seeks a stay pending judicial review of an administrative order suspending its license to operate as a dealer under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. sec.sec. 499a- 499s. The Department of Agriculture offers two jurisdictional defenses. First, it contends, the court lacks personal juris diction over the Department because the petition for review was forwarded to federal officials in Washington, D.C., by fax rather than by mail, as the Hobbs Act requires. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2344. Second, it asserts, the court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction because there is no "final" administrative order. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2342(2). Both of these contentions are frivolous. We are surprised and disappointed that they have been advanced by counsel for the federal government. (We add for the sake of completeness that all three lawyers whose names appear on the papers work for the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Justice apparently has allowed the agency to represent itself.) Once a private party files a petition for review, this court's Clerk must serve the federal agency by registered mail (return receipt requested). In light of the disruptions to the postal system caused by terrorist activity in recent months, the Clerk has begun to forward papers by fax in addition to mail. Naturally the fax copy arrives first, for it is not delayed by any security screening procedures. Why should this step deprive the court of personal jurisdiction over the Department? In this case, notice was sent by mail ...
|
|
|